In deep-blue places, Democrats already have all the advantages they need. If they still can't get the outcome they want, the answer is not rule revision - it's better policies. And better politics.

A rule is acceptable while it helps Democrats, or at least while it seems harmless. Then, the moment it threatens Democratic power, suddenly the rule itself becomes the problem.

We are seeing this in Virginia. We are seeing it in California. We have seen versions of it in New York. The pattern is becoming hard to miss.

In Virginia, Democrats pushed a new congressional map that would have dramatically improved their odds in the House. Voters approved it. Then the Virginia Supreme Court threw it out on state constitutional process grounds. The voters may have said yes, but the court said the legislature did not have the lawful right to ask the question that way.

The normal response would be obvious: appeal, make the legal argument, and if the appeal fails, accept the result.

Instead, some national Democrats reportedly discussed a much more radical idea: lower the retirement age for Virginia Supreme Court justices to 54, remove the entire court, replace the justices with friendlier judges, and try to revive the map.

That idea now appears dead — thankfully.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger said she does not support removing the justices. Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell also rejected the drastic path. 

Good. 

Virginia Democrats with actual responsibility in Richmond seem to understand that purging a court because it ruled against you is not reform. It is institutional demolition.

But the fact that the idea was even discussed tells us something: some Democrats are no longer satisfied with winning elections, winning referendums, or making arguments in court. They want a system in which institutions are expected to deliver Democratic outcomes. If the court says no, change the court. If the map dies, change the process. If the rules stop working, rewrite the rules.

Something silimar is unfolding in California.

The top-two primary system was sold as a reform. It was supposed to weaken party machines and reward moderation. California voters approved it in 2010. For years, Democrats could live with it. Why wouldn’t they? California is a deep-blue state. Democrats dominate statewide politics. They have the donors, the unions, the activist groups, the universities, the cultural institutions, and the political machinery.

But now a crowded governor’s race has raised fears that two Republicans could theoretically make the general election. Suddenly, some Democrats want to undo the system.

Maybe top-two primaries are flawed. There are reasonable arguments against them. They can confuse voters. They can produce strange lockouts. They can create incentives for campaigns to boost weaker opponents instead of making a clean argument to the public.

But the timing is the tell.

When the reform seemed manageable, it was democracy. When it might inconvenience Democrats, it became a crisis.

This is what makes the whole thing so revealing. We are not talking about Democrats fighting for survival in hostile territory. We are talking about deep-blue places where Democrats already have enormous advantages. California. New York. Maryland. Illinois. Places where Republicans are often barely allowed to be competitive.

And still, when Democrats do not get exactly what they want, the answer is not usually: maybe we should govern better. Maybe we should listen more. Maybe we should stop nominating candidates who only speak to activists. Maybe voters are tired of crime, high prices, bad schools, housing chaos, and ideological experiments.

No. The answer is too often: change the rules.

This also complicates the story Democrats prefer to tell about gerrymandering. The country has been told for years that Republicans are the great beneficiaries of unfair maps. But Republicans are actually underrepresented in the House by about three seats compared with the national vote.

Democrats keep presenting themselves as the party protecting democracy. Yet in practice, the argument often becomes: democracy is whatever keeps Democrats in charge.

That is not a defense of democracy. That is entitlement.

The healthier answer is not new rules. It is better politics.

Better candidates. Clearer priorities. More humility. More attention to the problems normal people actually face. Less time trying to engineer the electorate and more time trying to persuade it.

In deep-blue places, Democrats do not lack power. And they are running out of excuses.

(Contributing writer, Brooke Bell)